helloooo

Save your comments about you don't understand how hard it is... I know what it was like to do without and to sacrifice to have a parent stay at home. Looking back, we would have done it all over again. Don't you care more about your children than others do?

helloooo

1. Why would you send them somewhere the adults are not allowed to protect them?

2. Why would you not teach your child to protect themselves by using guns?

3. Why would you allow them to be taught by a majority of people who think you should not have a right to protect yourself and influence your children with these dangerous thoughts?

A parent should stay home, give up the 100+ channels, the extra car, video games, fancy home, smoking, McD's multiple times a week and make raising YOUR children rather than giving them to gov't to raise. Don't you care more about your children?

NathanHaleFan

But squirm, the Porkulus packages created so few jobs that even if one job was created for every billion dollars "invested," it was an epic failure. And no lives were saved, so by Obama's logic, it wasn't worth trying. But an investment in requiring every public school to have at least one armed good guy on site, COULD save at least one innocent schoolkid. And it HAS to be cheaper to implement than the 2 trillion that Obama "needed" to make his Solyndra etc. pals richer than they already were.

NathanHaleFan

The Obama administration has wasted TRILLIONS on ludicrous pork-barrel "investments." If they can afford to bail out banks, Freddie and Fannie, fight nonexistent man-made global warming, fund Solyndra into the ground, throw lavish parties, fly Michelle and the girls all over the place for free vacations, give F-16s and M1 tanks to radical Muslim extremists to use against Israel, pay Sesame Street's' salaries, and throw billions into non-shovel-ready jobs...but have no money from the public education budget to make schools something above "fish in a barrel, sitting duck" status, then something is seriously wrong.

KalvaChomer

That being said, I can't say with any certainty what the writer of the letter above had in mind as far as details or how thouroughly he thought it through, but I still say his heart was in the right place and his suggestion IS probably the short term approach, but not long term. A temporary response with costs is not a "police state" builder and not out of the question. The reaction by many in school systems around the country is an indication that they know how vulnerable they are and they are aware of the danger of copy cat incidents.

KalvaChomer

Columbine did have one armed guard but he was outside in the parking lot eating lunch when the whole thing began. He attempted to fight his way into the school but was turned back by the shooters. He called for help, which you will remember performed poorly when they got there. A lot has been done to improve police response since, but so long as we have the "attraction", to shooters, of gun free zones, the improved police tactics can only go so far.

Your image of "volunteers" seems to be just anyone who might come along on a daily basis and say they are willing to provide security. In response to pedophiles, almost every charity, school, youth organization, etc. that involves children now does background checks on both staff and volunteers.

Bullhead

If all you are talking about is allowing teachers and school administrators to carry their own firearms onto school property with a concealed weapons permit and training, then I have already stated that I would agree with that.

As far as unknown guests or "volunteers" (who have not been screened mentally and criminally) coming onto school property armed, I am not sure that is a wise idea. Likely will only exacerbate the problem.

If you are talking about adding security guards at tax-payer expense, I think that is largely a waste of money and a "feel good" measure that solves nothing.

KalvaChomer

What this does is give people the right to protect themselves, and by extension, anyone in their care. In the long run we need not bear as taxpayers any, or little, additional costs. We buy guns for our police. When have we heard of a crazed shooter attacking a police station ? What we need to do is relegate the "gun free zone" to the ash heap of liberal nostrums.

What would you do about the current exposure of schools ? Anything ?

All the current administraion will do is "Bengazi" our schools. We have home-grown terrorists attacking them, and leaving them unprotected is unacceptable.

Bullhead

And, as I tried to show, I don't accept your "volunteer army" as being legit or realistic to cover tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of schools and buses in the U.S. and territories.

And, I strongly object to hiring tens of thousands of security guards and/or adding police officers for this function at additional tax-payer expense.

I have little doubt that your proposal will be acceptable and pass in legislatures/Congress because we live in an emotional, irrational, short-sighted, and credit-driven society that wants above all else for a quick-solution to "feel safe". That doesn't, however, make for prudent or sound policy and definitely has unintended consequences and expense.

KalvaChomer

So long as the vulnerability remains, it probably should be adressed with "both" short and long term measures. Trained cops or security personnel, even at cost, should be deployed short term and for the long term we should rid the minds of the deranged that there are sitting duck targets for them by training and equipping (laws or changes to laws) willing and able teachers and school administrators as a first line defense. It's an "in-between" solution to your objections, but we do have a serious exposure here and it needs to be addressed "seriously".

KalvaChomer

Bullhead - You started by pointing out the costs involved with the specific suggestion of the writer of the LTE. I addressed that, in agreement with Majoritarian, by implying that the costs can and likely will be addressed largely by volunteers. Likely the people with the true "skin in the game", teachers and other school personnel. You did allow that they should be able to get permits and be armed and trained, but only after a parade of horribles of those costs and possible consequences. Then reiterated your objection to taxpayer expense.

Bullhead

I am not saying that it isn't a better outcome than disarming the citizenry. I think both of bad solutions.

Again, I don't necessarily think that schools need/or should be "gun-free zones". I said, if a teacher or administrator wants to get their concealed-weapons permit and/or training, then that should be allowed. Maybe visitors could be allowed after check-in.

I have a Liberty to keep the fruits of my labor without it getting confiscated for half-baked, "feel-safe" proposals that waste taxes and accomplish VERY little in actuality--lest we forget every school bus in America that could be hijacked while there are 30-40 students on board.

Are these schools now going to allow me in with my gun? Or will it only be the authorized security--like the U.S. Capital and Secret Service and courthouses that serve as "our example"? BTW, I largely regard those as police state tactics of guilty until proven innocent.

KalvaChomer

Bullhead, do you maintain that schools have not become a target for deranged shooters ? If we know the threat is there, shouldn't we address it directly ? This is less of a "police state" solution than the disarming of the people through gun control. Take away the right of self defense and its tools and you will be more dependent on the "police" and the "state". The ban on future sales of some weapons will do little, if anything, to address the current problem. At best it is but a stepping stone to the next demand to disarm the public. It does not address the threat we have NOW. If anything created this sorry situation, it is the concept of the gun free zone.

What "liberty" are we giving up here per Franklin's saying ? We are asking for a right to self defense through the Second Amendment.

KalvaChomer

squirm - "Who makes up this pool of people that are willing to volunteer...."

They are the people with the most at stake ! The ones who are likely to die in another such incident. And they know that, and that is why they want the right to self defense. They are joined by others, as I said, who will volunteer to help them help themselves. If you knew beforehand that a shooter could possibly enter your school and start shooting, would you rather embrace the left's ideal of just huddling over a group of students in a closet to be connon fodder for the shooter, or would you prefer at least a fighting chance with a firearm of your own ?

Bullhead

Personally, I think we should do away with "free" public education. However, I know that isn't going to happen.

Yet, this idea is still half-baked when it comes to evaluating cost and actual security.

So, is someone going to do exhaustive mental and criminal background checks on the volunteers? After this initial frenzy, I don't think many are going to continue to volunteer day-in and day-out to put their life on the line and adjust their full-time schedule to be at every school in the U.S.

Let's also not forget we would need to man every school bus, city park, library, rest-stop, day-care, etc.

Also, will the NRA and those proposing this "solution" also take responsibility when one of "their volunteers" goes ballistic or rapes a student at gun-point?

If teachers and administrators want to get their concealed weapons permit and/or gun training, then fine.

KalvaChomer

Bullhead - "This half-baked idea with its costs I see as being among them! The proposal likely adds more problems than it actually fixes."

As someone points out below, "many will volunteer". It is already happening around the country. One school district in California has just purchased 14 AR15's to be stored in its schools. Many teachers are asking for training and permits. Some already have them. Police forces and gun ranges with NRA certified trainers are offering free training. What is the alternative to not bearing the costs ? "The kids are much more likely to die on a school bus accident...."

ContraryOne

Bullhead

Sorry, KalvaChomer, but I have to disagree strongly. We all know that sometimes the best of intentions lead to the worst of results.

This half-baked idea with its costs I see as being among them! The proposal likely adds more problems than it actually fixes.

It is a placebo solution to make people "feel better" about their kids being away at a school surrounded by unknowns. The kids are much more likely to die on a school bus accident or be sexually-molested by someone in the school personnel. "Sparing no expense" (when it is paid for by someone else) is a short-sighted and counter-productive mantra!

KalvaChomer

Come now Bullhead. It might not be eloquently stated or the argument powerfully made, but his heart is in theright place and he is right that it is the only proper measure that will likely do any good.